It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
https://x.com/acyn/status/1920499855652499706?s=46
Tariffs are a tool, not an endgame. The film industry’s global nature makes this a messy battlefield—Hollywood relies on UK talent, Pinewood Studios, and tax incentives to keep budgets viable. Slapping 100% tariffs retroactively on Bond films shot abroad? Chaos. But strategic chaos.
The goal isn’t to kill British cinema—it’s to force renegotiation of trade terms that’ve let foreign subsidies undercut U.S. crews for decades. Sean Connery’s legacy isn’t the issue; it’s about ensuring the next Bond reboot doesn’t outsource 10,000 American jobs to Buckinghamshire while LA soundstages sit empty.
Leverage first, deals second.
The stairwell fight. What really worked about CR is that its locations felt lived in.
As far as I know no release date has been planned under Heyman/Pascal. I think it’s so early into this process it’s not really feasible committing to a date yet.
I mean, casting alone for a new Bond takes months potentially.
Well what on earth does that mean.
Deals with who? The only problem is that the US is too expensive (excessive unionisation, unusual healthcare etc.), the only people who can sort that out is the US itself. Forcing Hollywood to make films in a more expensive way (i.e in the US) isn’t a solution to anything.
You want to attract business back? Then you have to incentivise it, not punish it for going elsewhere and force it to pay you more. Business is about being competitive, not killing your competitors; because if you go that way the consumer (in this case Hollywood and the moviegoer) is the ultimate loser.
On a smaller note, the idea of a Bond movie made in the US is an unappetising one to me and I would have thought most fans of previous Bond films, they’ve always been made with predominantly U.K. talent.
Edit: oh my goodness, I just realised you were quoting a government-sponsored AI bot. Wow.
Sure he was.
To be fair I know they met several times at events (prior to 2016). But Trump has likely exaggerated or outright lied about his connection to Connery in the past. When he died he claimed Connery was the reason he got planning permission for his golf course in Scotland (there’s no evidence of Connery writing or speaking to anyone about this, even if he was in favour of a Trump golf course).
Yeah, they were just non-official reports. I'll hold fire for now, sounds like they've got their hands full.
That's a ballsy call imo. I just can't see how amazon wouldn't want to take advantage of the euros happening in the UK, whether it be at the cinemas or to promote the VOD release.
Prisoner was produced by David Heyman.
Ok… I’m still not sure what it has to do with when this film will be released.
I think when a film is released depends in part on what’s practical. It might not be feasible getting a Bond film for that exact month you’re saying, and likely trying to tie it in that closely to a separate event could cause problems if the timeline isn’t right. You could even argue a mid summer 2028 release might not be as financially successful as an Autumn/Winter one. A 2028 release isn’t unlikely though, and if there’s an opportunity to create hype for Bond through the Euros in terms of advertising, akin to the 2012 Olympics, I have no doubt they’d take that opportunity (I have absolutely no interest in football much less this event by the way, so I don’t know if that’d even be feasible one way or the other).
So I imagine if this is the case that you take it the Cuaron rumours were all smoke and mirrors?
I’m in the same boat as everyone here - we have no confirmation of a director as of yet.
I still genuinely don't see what Azkaban has to do with any of this though in terms of release date.
I thought I explained it. David Heyman and Cuaron used that date in the past, and it might prove to be a convenient slot again, because by the time the tournament ends in July the film will be hitting VOD and a lot of people in the UK will double dip. My main point is that both Bond and football are British institutions, and pairing them together can only be a good thing. When there is an air of celebration and light patriotism people are more likely to say "sod it!" And loosen the purse strings, and I think Skyfall caught similar headwinds in 2012.
I think that would be a 'nice to have' but won't be a priority. A bit like how they wanted to have a film out in 2007 because the date was apposite, but couldn't so they didn't.
I don't think you'd want a film out too close to the Euros anyway.
If the opportunity if there I don't doubt we could see a Bond advert during the Euros or something. Maybe July will even be the release date - I don't know. Worth saying it might not be the best time to release a Bond film that soon after the Euros anyway, and even SF had a release months after the Olympics. I don't think they'll pencil a release date to work solely around the Euros. I think it comes down to many other factors.
Heyman's worked on many films and release dates have an element of practicality and financial incentive to them. Even if Cuaron is the director it's a different film, and different considerations will be taken to account when thinking of the timeline and release.
If Amazon is happy to wait until late 2028 for Bond 26 and give no mind to timeframes then why did they spend a billion to buy out EON?
I'm not sure if it hinges on believing any rumours. As of now Bond 26 is in very early stages - not even in official development yet as far as I'm aware. Heyman and Pascal obviously have other projects too which could affect a timeline, but it's only been just over a month since they were confirmed as producers. Even if it's true Amazon are aiming for a late 2027 release, that's only an aim. The timeline of film productions and releases change all the time based on practical considerations.
Because they were stuck at an impasse is how it seems. You can't wish The Sun into being correct; I'd like a film in '27 too but I'm not going to try and somehow argue it into existence.
Also what about tariffs in the opposite direction from other countries in response?
Going back and listening several times, I don't think he means Bond specifically, but film in general; there is an under emphasized comma, ' "that particular, film"
I truly think this will work out; films will be able to shoot in locations around the world, but , particularly, U.S. based films will bring more of their in studio work back to the States.
I realize that some people do not like our President; that's their prerogative.
As every world leader should do, he is trying to do what's best for his nation and it's citizens. In this case it's bolstering State side film production by bringing back jobs that have been increasingly exported to other countries.
Maybe, he needs to make it actually cheaper for studios to do that rather than punish them for trying to save money though, otherwise the studios will be damaged (in what is already a bad time for them) and those jobs won't exist anywhere. That's just common sense.
Our leaders brought jobs to our countries by incentivising the industry and making their business easier, and it worked. It's a pretty simple formula.
Tariffs are a tool; they may be initially uncomfortable and disruptive, but the goal of bringing more studio production back to the States will ultimately "make it actually cheaper" by creating domestic competition. More studios will be built Stateside, creating jobs, and they will vie to land productions.
My question this whole time has been, why should Bond yield to American will? That seems odd, that it's getting so politicized in the US when its a UK character. Is it because it's now an American studio? Don't they now somehow have to reckon with Pinewood? It'd be better if there was localized specialization. UK does big water tank shoots bc Pinewood is capable of that. Australia/NZ get Post-production work because they're the best at it. Hollywood focuses on studio stuff and prestige TV. Idk though.
This isn't a "Bond" specific issue, is a "Film" issue. From big water tanks to post-production, there is no reason that the U. S. cannot be competitive in both.
I do know that individual States have done quite well by offering incentives. I live in Louisiana and quite a few big productions have come here because of Tax incentives .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Louisiana